This Isn’t Working Out (Allen West Statement)

#226
#226
NorthDallas40 said:
So I’m going to make a leap and guess you like the idea of wealth redistribution and believe everyone has a basic right to earn a wage of an amount to support themselves and their families? And that possibly it is the government’s responsibility to guarantee that right as well as their well being on other things like healthcare?
Click to expand...

no to wealth redistribution. Otherwise, I am a proponent of FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights from 1944
 
#227
#227
Grand Vol said:
I think there's enough evidence to do serious investigations into the alleged fraud in places where investigations will be impossible. Save maybe Georgia.

Sorry, but there is no way Biden pulled in 80 million votes. Not with the way Trump made significant inroads with all demographics across the board and there's no way that much excitement behind him led to states like Georgia and Arizona flipping.

This election was begging for fraud with all the mail in ballots. Now, nobody wants to do the checks they should be doing in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada.

Well, we got the fraud we so desperately wanted.
Click to expand...
Well, if it makes you feel any better Biden didn’t get 80 million votes. He got over 81 million 😎
 
#228
#228
canitpro said:
no to wealth redistribution. Otherwise, I am a proponent of FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights from 1944
Click to expand...


Just out of curiosity but did you finally remember your login in or something after 6 years?

You are radio silent forever and then boom you suddenly become chatty katty.

Or are you an alter? Just curious why the sudden posting spree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Rickyvol77, 1972 Grad and 1 other person
#229
#229
canitpro said:
no to wealth redistribution. Otherwise, I am a proponent of FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights from 1944
Click to expand...
So yes. You believe the government has the duty to provide income, housing, and healthcare. That was FDR’s socialist agenda in that proposal.

Also the only way to accomplish that is by wealth redistribution via heavy federal taxes. The money to implement these social services must come from somewhere to be provided where is it needed.

So this is the most basic identity of socialism. I literally laughed out loud when I saw your “just society” statement. And it plays well with your class ware fare terms.

FDR was a socialist and his proposed 2nd bill of rights would have turned us into another socialist Eurotrash nation. So I’m guessing you probably identify as socialist also even if you won’t admit it.

Somewhere Marx, Engels, and Rousseau are looking up from a very warm place and smiling upon your posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
#230
#230
NEO said:
I like the food trucks and community feel of watercolor. It's ridiculous what the price per square ft there is though. I just don't see how its sustainable. I could be wrong but I just think that whole area will take a price crash eventually.
Click to expand...
I just learned that 3 cottages, same size as mine, have sold in my neighborhood in the last month. In the 3 years since I bought this place, the price of these little beach houses have gone up about 60%. The real estate man told me that the price of ocean front lots is still quite a bit below what they were in approximately 2004. This area took a deep dive during the housing crisis. Low interest rates and a decent economy cause a surge in vacation home sales.
 
#233
#233
NEO said:
Just out of curiosity but did you finally remember your login in or something after 6 years?

You are radio silent forever and then boom you suddenly become chatty katty.

Or are you an alter? Just curious why the sudden posting spree.
Click to expand...

I created an account several years back to read postgame threads in the basketball forums, I didn’t realize there was a political forum until this week, I was excited to see how active it is so I thought I would try it out
 
#234
#234
canitpro said:
you‘re reading into the criticism of Wall Street, etc. in a way that wasn’t intended. I’m criticizing the system, not the people. Similarly, I have nothing against wealthy individuals, per se, just the system.

in a just society, charity would not be necessary - people’s livelihoods and well-being shouldn’t be contingent on someone else’s charitable whims

On the last point - agreed, yes it is wrong to oppress people
Click to expand...
In a just society welfare wouldn’t exist, charity would.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
#237
#237
canitpro said:
I created an account several years back to read postgame threads in the basketball forums, I didn’t realize there was a political forum until this week, I was excited to see how active it is so I thought I would try it out
Click to expand...
👇So back to the discussion we were having?
NorthDallas40 said:
So yes. You believe the government has the duty to provide income, housing, and healthcare. That was FDR’s socialist agenda in that proposal.

Also the only way to accomplish that is by wealth redistribution via heavy federal taxes. The money to implement these social services must come from somewhere to be provided where is it needed.

So this is the most basic identity of socialism. I literally laughed out loud when I saw your “just society” statement. And it plays well with your class ware fare terms.

FDR was a socialist and his proposed 2nd bill of rights would have turned us into another socialist Eurotrash nation. So I’m guessing you probably identify as socialist also even if you won’t admit it.

Somewhere Marx, Engels, and Rousseau are looking up from a very warm place and smiling upon your posts.
Click to expand...
 
#238
#238
canitpro said:
thats a leap. the government can, in theory, protect individual transactions from theft, fraud, etc., the FDIC protects money when it’s deposited in a bank, the first amendment protects speech.

based on the logic of your second point, I suppose we must use the transitive property for all things to determine rights...? Because an eagle flies it should be regulated by the FAA? Because a swimming pool is a body of water it’s living bacteria should be protected by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
Click to expand...

Are you one of Luther’s kids?

Corporations are comprised/owned by people so they have a right to participate in our electoral process.
 
#239
#239
NorthDallas40 said:
On the issue of PACs its near impossible to find a working compromise on private money funding politics. I don’t care how much of your own money you spend. But everybody else’s private money either direct or via PAC or party or lobby should be removed.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you think PACs should be eliminated?
 
#240
#240
hog88 said:
Are you one of Luther’s kids?

Corporations are comprised/owned by people so they have a right to participate in our electoral process.
Click to expand...
Not if we get private money out of politics.

Look how much money was literally flushed down the toilet in this election cycle. It’s wasted resources, it forces the candidates to be beholden to special interest or parties, promotes external monetary interference (Soros), and sells offices to the highest bidder.

It isn’t sustainable
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NashVol11 and Orangeslice13
#241
#241
NEO said:
I like the food trucks and community feel of watercolor. It's ridiculous what the price per square ft there is though. I just don't see how its sustainable. I could be wrong but I just think that whole area will take a price crash eventually.
Click to expand...

I like Grayton Beach, not crowded and not to far from the more touristy areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO
#242
#242
hog88 said:
Are you saying you think PACs should be eliminated?
Click to expand...
I’m saying all private money funding elections needs to be eliminated. Have you ever looked at the public funding model for elections? Each registered voter gets a budget to support their chosen candidates.?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#243
#243
NorthDallas40 said:
So yes. You believe the government has the duty to provide income, housing, and healthcare. That was FDR’s socialist agenda in that proposal.

Also the only way to accomplish that is by wealth redistribution via heavy federal taxes. The money to implement these social services must come from somewhere to be provided where is it needed.

So this is the most basic identity of socialism. I literally laughed out loud when I saw your “just society” statement. And it plays well with your class ware fare terms.

FDR was a socialist and his proposed 2nd bill of rights would have turned us into another socialist Eurotrash nation. So I’m guessing you probably identify as socialist also even if you won’t admit it.

Somewhere Marx, Engels, and Rousseau are looking up from a very warm place and smiling upon your posts.
Click to expand...

characterizing It as requiring some form of redistribution is ahistorical - yes, taxes were higher at the time, but that doesn’t constitute redistributive policy- the policy would have worked within the framework of how the government operated at the time. It’s funny - I don’t often see people complain about TVA or ORNL that came out of similar New Deal policy, it’s generally accepted those are successful institutions, and employee satisfaction is very high.

FDR was a member of the Democratic Party, at the time his proposals weren’t seen by the general public as being outside that parties normative policy, so again you are mischaracterizing

I definitely have my own unique opinions and clearly they are outside the norm, at least in this thread, but I am sincerely here in good faith, in hopes of having engaging conversations
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#245
#245
NorthDallas40 said:
Not if we get private money out of politics.

Look how much money was literally flushed down the toilet in this election cycle. It’s wasted resources, it forces the candidates to be beholden to special interest or parties, promotes external monetary interference (Soros), and sells offices to the highest bidder.

It isn’t sustainable
Click to expand...

I’m against taxpayer funded campaigns because that would 100% lead to bureaucrats deciding who get’s funded and elected.
 
#246
#246
canitpro said:
characterizing It as requiring some form of redistribution is ahistorical - yes, taxes were higher at the time, but that doesn’t constitute redistributive policy- the policy would have worked within the framework of how the government operated at the time. It’s funny - I don’t often see people complain about TVA or ORNL that came out of similar New Deal policy, it’s generally accepted those are successful institutions, and employee satisfaction is very high.

FDR was a member of the Democratic Party, at the time his proposals weren’t seen by the general public as being outside that parties normative policy, so again you are mischaracterizing

I definitely have my own unique opinions and clearly they are outside the norm, at least in this thread, but I am sincerely here in good faith, in hopes of having engaging conversations
Click to expand...
There is plenty of info out there on the negative repercussions of the TVA. It was one of FDR’s vote purchasing schemes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#247
#247
canitpro said:
characterizing It as requiring some form of redistribution is ahistorical - yes, taxes were higher at the time, but that doesn’t constitute redistributive policy- the policy would have worked within the framework of the government of the time without the need for upheaval of how the government operated at the time. It’s funny - I don’t often see people complain about TVA or ORNL that came out of similar New Deal policy, it’s generally accepted those are successful institutions, and employee satisfaction is very high.

FDR was a member of the Democratic Party, at the time his proposals weren’t seen by the general public as being outside that parties normative policy, so again you are mischaracterizing

I definitely have my own unique opinions and clearly they are outside the norm, at least in this thread, but I am sincerely here in good faith, in hopes of having engaging conversations
Click to expand...
Ok so yes you are a fundamentalist socialist. Just go ahead and say it.

So 2nd bull of rights has largely gone unanswered to. Pretty much across the board. Where we stand the government only guarantees an education up thru high school, has interfered in our free market healthcare which provides innovation that the whole world benefits from, and only provides income and healthcare for the elderly via compulsory pension and health insurance programs which im not a fan of.

I believe the government should be minimized to the smallest extent possible and only provide the common defense and basic utilities while completely staying out of economic guarantees. They can only remove obstacles but not guarantee even basic outcomes. I am responsible for my outcome and the outcome of my family. I am not responsible for guaranteeing any body else’s outcome however if I choose to participate in anybody else’s outcome it will be by my own choosing via charity of my choice.

Sell me on FDR’s 2nd bill of rights since you are in the selling position.
 
#248
#248
hog88 said:
I’m against taxpayer funded campaigns because that would 100% lead to bureaucrats deciding who get’s funded and elected.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t have to but I don’t blame you for being jaded. They are all crooks after all.

But this private funding method is not sustainable as we saw this election cycle with the billions spent total on National and even state house races.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and NEO
#249
#249
hog88 said:
Well FDR was the epitome of big government central planning.
Click to expand...

he had one of the highest approval ratings in history. central planning is a different form of government... FDR was a Democrat, he operated within the precepts of the Democratic Party, there was no central planning
 
#250
#250
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top